Lakhanpal will also attend a meeting of the WTO's Appellate Body which has asked the US and India for an "oral" hearing on the dispute regarding removal of quantitative restrictions on imports by India. The meeting follows an appeal filed by India against the ruling of a WTO panel on the dispute on May 25.

Earlier, New Delhi had set June 30 as the date for consultations on the auto policy framed one a hand a half years ago. But this was not found suitable for the US which had sought a postponement of the date.

During the discussions, Lakanapal will drive the home point that the provision of foreign exchange neutrality to be maintained by intending foreign auto giants wishing toset up shop in India has been retained in the policy for balance of payments reasons.

He had given India's explanation on the policy on these lines during consultations in Geneva during December 1998 with the European Union which had filed a petition in the WTO against the policy. On the QRs issue, India had given its written submission to the WTO on June 4, while the US had made its counter-submission on June 20 or 21.

The three-member Appellate Body can uphold, modify or reverse the findings and conclusions of the WTO panel ruling against which India had filed the appeal.

As a general rule, the appellate proceedings are not to exceed 60 days but not in any case shall they exceed 90 days. Thirty days after the issue, the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body adopts the report of the Appellate Body which is accepted by the parties to the dispute (India and the US in the present case) unless there is a consensus against its adoption.Thereafter the parties must state about their intentions about theimplementation of the recommendations of the panel report or the Appellate Court's findings within 30 of the adoption. If it is "impractical"to accept the recommendations, the member will be given a "reasonable period of time to be set up by the DSB.If it (member) fails to act within this period,it is obliged to enter into negotiations with the complainant to determine a mutually acceptable compensation.